On Tuesday, 9 million more votes were cast than in 2000. On Tuesday, Bush received 8.3 million votes more than he did in 2000. If those 8.3 million Bush voters who weren’t there for Dubya in 2000 all came from the big pool of new voters, then Democrats should start getting ready to pack it up and move to France. Why? Because a Republican president has increased his ballot total by 15 percent simply by creating new Republican voters who didn’t exist before. This is potentially catastrophic for the Democratic Party. — John Podhoretz
From what I’ve heard, leftists are very angry. If Bush had lost, we’d be very angry, too. But this is not a time to gloat. I’ve come to the alarming realization that I’ve wasted valuable time responding to my critics’ petty name-calling. I’ve been called vain and hypocritical by people who don’t even know me.
I’ve played right into their hands. I’ve given them much more credence than they deserve. Why? Pride. I was compelled to respond directly to venom, which will only increase in the blogosphere. It’s time to consider myself “high-profile” (I shudder at the thought.) and expect much worse.
America is deeply divided on moral issues, and the only Americans shocked by this are liberals. Notice that I’m not using “Democrat.” Not all Democrats are liberals according to my definition of liberals.
We conservatives assert that liberals are wrong on policy issues. To go a step further, we Christians think all unbelievers are wrong about God. Not only do I believe we have truth on our side, I believe that truth can be demonstrated. As best I can in the most reasoned and knowledgeable way I can, I will do just that. I believe my worldview, based on my faith, is consistent and able to withstand criticism.
It is a duty of all Christians to defend the faith, no matter who you voted for on Tuesday. I don’t know about you, but I’m not in the mood to compromise. There is too much at stake.
To a certain extent, the homosexual “marriage” issue brought a lot of people to the polls. Radicals wanted to shock us with homosexual “wedding” ceremonies, and it backfired. People are willing to take only so much, and they spoke loudly and clearly at the polls yesterday. We gave George Bush a decisive win. Some are even calling it a landslide.
A few liberals are mumbling about the return of the Confederacy; others are chattering about us ignorant fundamentalists and our “intolerance” and “hate.” Yes, I am intolerant of perversion and those forcing it on me. Yes, I hate it when people try to change society by judicial fiat rather than going through the proper process. I frankly don’t care what people do behind closed doors, as long as they’re not doing it with a child. Otherwise, knock yourselves out.
The liberals’ worldview is under attack, and that worldview is just as precious to them as ours is to us. It’s almost cliche now, but liberals, who claim to be the voice of the people, are sadly out of touch with the people, as attested to by Bush’s 3.5 million-vote edge.
Mr. Bush, if you’re reading this blog, listen to the people. Think carefully about that edge and deliver for the voters who put you back in office. You can start by:
— Privatizing social security
— Putting pro-life judges on the bench
— Banning homosexual “marriage”
— Banning race preferences in public (government) hiring and college admissions
— Tightening the southern border and enforcing immigration law
— Balancing the budget
— Lowering taxes even more and cutting spending on wasteful programs
— Protecting the free speech rights of all Americans, including Americans who profess Christ
— Getting more aggressive in Iraq, finishing this war and bringing our troops home
Christian and conservative voices are desperately needed in the fight against liberal ideology. Ironically, Bush’s re-election underscores the urgency. The battle is not for the faint of heart or the timid or the irrational. We need to keep our heads about us. The enemy will not hesitate to use any means necessary to vanquish us.
Be ready and be strong.
Update: Bush read my blog this morning: “We will start on Social Security now. We will start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together.”
Linda Chavez: “I have some advice for these learned souls [liberal elites]. If they want to understand the American electorate, maybe they should spend less time at Starbucks sipping double lattes over the Sunday Times and more time at church or the local high school football game or in line at a Wal-Mart. They might actually learn something about the values that drive most Americans: faith, family and an abiding love of their country. Maybe if the elites would stop lecturing instead of listening to the American public, they’d be less surprised at the outcome of our elections.”
CBS: “The Republican South has created some formidable election math for the Democrats. With the South in the pocket of the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, the 2008 Democratic nominee will need about 70 percent of electoral votes available in the rest of the country to win the White House.”
Washington Post (reg. req.): “A minority president no more, President Bush sketched a second-term agenda Thursday that includes fighting the worldwide war on terror and seeking tax overhaul and fundamental changes in Social Security at home.”
Bush to Arafat: “God Bless His Soul” — What Bush really wanted to say is politically incorrect: “God have mercy on his soul.” I hope God does.
Hugh Hewitt: “[Ken] Salazar will be a new force in the Democratic party, a genuinely Western voice in a club too long dominated by Yalies and their Hollywood buddies…The same can be said for Barak Obama. Goodbye tired old leadership elites that stridently grind and condemn. Obama comes to the table armed with smarts, charisma, and youth. John Kerry lost on Tuesday, but so did Sharpton, Jesse, Julian, and the rest of the old school. Obama will never say so, but the ’60s era civil rights tactics are long past their prime….”
Politburo Diktat is very funny. Check out this post.
Peggy Noonan: “George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. ‘Volunteers’ who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.”
Bill Hobbs: “John Kerry didn’t lose because he had a popular but poorly marketed progressive message. His solidly liberal message of higher taxes, massively expensive government-run healthcare, a less-aggressive approach to the war on terror and a “global test” giving the UN and the French influence over American foreign policy was marketed heavily with a huge budget behind it — some $500 million spent by the campaign, the DNC, and an array of allied groups such as ACT, MoveOn and many more, all dutifully echoed by the liberal mainstream media.”
Solo: “Regardless of population, vast parts of the United States feel and voted a certain way. Screw ignoring “the red”. Ya better learn how to work with them. Talk with them. Leverage something with them. I’ll get it started…”
Conservative bloggers on moral issues and the election: Ambra Nykol, Evangelical Outpost (also see Joe’s post on evangelicals in the blogosphere), Joshua Claybourn
{ 1 trackback }
{ 64 comments }
La Shawn Barber is tired of responding to critics. I don’t blame her. My mail has b [...]
Yes, it is immature to respond to critics when they resort to name calling, it is best to focus on the message and its intent.
I agree that the mandate is there for real change, the President now needs to be an aggressive culture warrior as well as a reformist in the way government addresses social policy. I never thought I would buy into the ownership society being that I am a small government conservative, but as I studied its intent, I realized that it was the polar opposite of the great society and am now more open to some of the suggestion being made by the President.
We can’t lose our vigor and focus, there is still much fighting to be done.
The Leader of the Not So Stupid Mexican Clan
The True King Carlos
Amen and Amen.
‘nuf said.
Good morning, LB the DEMS are spewing out all kind of anger, grief, and hateful words, but they have 4 years and 2 months to get over it. I listened to our local (DEM) Christian radio station call ins this morning and they pretty much said GW was the anti-Christ, I want say I can’t believe the responses, but DEMS who want change must start to look at what is going on. As a black man its hurtful to hear some of the responses from other black Americans when you tell them you vote Republican. They don’t get it. President Bush must continue to be a man of character and hold to strong family values. He must put the right people in the right job at the right time. Most of America will appreciate his effort and many will not. So here’s looking forward to the next four years, when the righteous are in charge the people will rejoice. I’m rejoicing! United we stand – divided they fall. Great post LB.
LaShawn, your list to President Bush was so accurate! I think the BEST way our President can not only balance the budget, but cut wasteful spending, is to immediately withdraw from the United Nations! And secondly, to require a full accounting from Koffi Annan, who has personally bilked an untold amount from the “Oil for Food” program.
I am puzzled about one aspect of the election and hope you can provide at least your version of an explanation: why did so many Jews vote Democrat, when it is known that President Bush is such an ally to Israel; and why did so many Christian blacks vote Democrat when it is President Bush who is the defender of the faith?
I wonder how long before the DailyKos and Oliver calm down, and start writing something insightful, rather than the inciteful drivel that has been pouring like rain over in their neck of the blogosphere? (not that I can blame them too much… they are very sensitve people, and their whole framework just took a boot to the head [how many metaphors just got mixed there?])
Thanks for leading by example, LB.
Hey LB: I’ve decided to write longhand letters to the White House specifically on some of these matters. I’m going to break it up by topic, and I think I’m going to start with respect to the Supreme Court (and specifically to work to get Arlen Specter off the judiciary committee in the Senate)… and I’m copying it to Bill Frist, too.
I’m sure he’s going to do the right thing on Iraq, because this past week I’ve been reading more about the nation-building efforts in Iraq and how other countries are getting involved (the EU is helping to train Iraqi police, for example.)
In any case, I’m cerainly energized to go back to writing letters again. I wrote my first letter, as a child, to Reagan about nuclear war. I wrote to Clinton about China and Cuba. I think this President is going to get lots more letters from me. So far, I’ve stuck to writing Congress. Time to break out the stamps and envelopes.
Even though I didn’t vote for Bush or Kerry (Green Party voter) am I just glad people were decent at the polls. And as always, I will respect the office of the presidency. As for hate on the left, all I can say is:
Drop it like it’s hot!
As a man that hated for 12 years of my life, it isn’t the way to go. Got to channel it into positive motion.
I agree with all of this post wholeheartedly, La Shawn, but I think we ought to tighten up our northen border too. By making it so easy to immigrate to this country illegally, we’re paying every person who immigrated legally a grave insult.
2 cents, paid in full.
GAHHHH, Solo said “drop it like it’s hot”. I’m dyin’. I too respect the presidency. People are pouting right now and it’s smelly.
Were Kerry to have won, I’d just swallow my chill pill and take it like a woman. Now after office is an entirely different story. Bill Clinton gets little of my respect.
Tussy,
I have a “perception” as to why so many Black people voted Democrat. “History” is the main reason. As a (White) member of a Black church I observe tremendous loyalty and respect given Black leaders, which includes pastors and ministers. So, what is spoken from the pulpit carries great influence. And many of their “national” leaders have a “Reverend” title.
Thanks to God, my wife thinks independently and follows exclusively Jesus Christ.
Hallejuah, La Shawn! The liberals aren’t nearly as credible as we thought. That is a great quote and I’m going to share it with all my friends. Has the silent majority spoken up finally?
Last Sunday our minister compared “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mat 5:39, where he used a translation of strike as slap, meaning to insult) to “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” (Rom 12:20). The idea was that if you seek vegeance for an insult on your own, God will not, and he is much better at it. Instead rest on his promise.
Lashawn..what a great post. I’ve been watching and listening to the libs trying to figure out what went wrong. I would be interested in a couple sentence statement as to what your bloggers see as the reason the dems failed again.
Personally..I voted republican out of my faith in George Bush..but the close alliance of the dems to whacko’s like Moore..Balwin and Babs convinced me I was on the right side. You take care. Love Ray..
Btw..Have you ever considered running for political office?
You are everything philossphical I’d want in a leader. In fact.I think I could put together a great team from just the people who post here. Excluding me of course..who is more a political Drew Budini.
LaShawn,
I’ve been coming to your site for a few months now, via Negrophile…I would consider myself moderate on most issues and agree with you on many of your talking points, except abortion and affirmative action (which I feel could use some revision but should not be abolished just yet).
I also visit more liberal sites like Oliver Willis and the like and one thing I can get over is the fact that poster and commenters alike can bash the hell out of each yet not admit that folks have the right to say and believe what they want and respectfully agree to DISAGREE. Conservative folks are equally as bad about this as liberal folks and that’s the truth. That is what has been damaged the most in all of this: the right to engage in respectful dialogue. Quite frankly, it’s sickening. I didn’t vote for Bush but I wasn’t a Kerry lover either. We need more choices and until we get them, this type of sick wordplay isn’t going to go away.
And don’t send me hate mail about my beliefs..You believe what you want and I won’t blow up your inbox either…
I’m completely with you, La Shawn!
Perhaps we could all sign our names on your letter to the President (under yours of course) and REALLY sent it to him!
I’d love to join you!
Your libertarian paternalist white male anglo-saxon protestant fan, living in Slovakia and married to a Slovak activist pro-life Catholic — thinks you are great.
Yes, you are becoming “high-profile”, and deservedly so. You didn’t mention on your list that Newsrooms need more “diversity” — meaning more Republicans, and folk who are serious about their faith. (You might qualify under 4 categories! Though probably there ARE enough women, now.)
You’re right about pro-Bush folk being angry had we lost, too. (And I think with more reason.)
I wrote up a blog post against the q: “Why Kerry Lost”, because it’s the wrong question. Why did Bush Win, is the right question — and your really fine list of action items is the answer to the more important question.
(I note in my blog that had the Dems run somebody more clearly pro-Iraq war, like Lieberman, some 5-10% Deaniac fanatics would have gone to anti-war Nader.)
Prepare for stardom — keep praying, maintain humor, not hate, in the face of venom.
Great list of suggestions for the prez, La Shawn. I would add:
-Tightening the northern border
-Supporting school choice
All Best
One of the main problems for this election….was that the democrats had the mantra this year….”ANYONE but Bush”. Well, they got their ‘anyone’ (Kerry), and that type of thinking failed them. The dislike for Bush was so strong that I feel that they couldn’t hardly think straight. The other problem with Senator Kerry was that he said he would do things: better…..smarter…..he had a ‘plan’……..but wouldn’t go into specifics on what those things were. But as in the 8 years of Clinton/Gore that I had to endure….I understand how the democrats feel. Even in that, I still repected the office of the President when Mr. Clinton was there. I didn’t hate the guy. His policies I didn’t agree with. The only way that the country would ‘pull together’ is to realize we are all Americans. It doesn’t matter what party affiliation or race you are. We do need to care for one another. I have neighbors that live next to us that are stanch democrats. And we are republicans….but our bond is in the same Lord, Jesus Christ. We care and respect each other. Even in our differences, I don’t agree with them…but I am not going to not care or help them just because of that. Have a great weekend in this great U.S. of A.!!
On tolerance and accusations of intolerance: I’ve written before on my blog about how our society buys into an illusion of moral neutrality. People think that it’s being intolerant to say that anything is morally wrong; as if it’s possible to be morally neutral on anything. For example, “pro-choice” isn’t a morally neutral term, yet that’s considered the “tolerant” term to use rather than “pro-abortion”.
Unless people start to understand what tolerance really means (and it really means tolerating things that you believe are wrong, because it would be worse to suppress them), I suspect we’ll always be called intolerant anytime we express an opinion that something (or some group of people) is wrong.
‘Privatizing social security’
You think people want this? that it be neither social nor secure? That that is the moral thing to do to our aged and infirm?
It would be phased in, Actus. No one receiving it now will lose it. Privatizing it for us and future generations will take the money out of the government’s hands and into our own where we may invest it ourselves for ourselves. Please don’t tell me you’re naive enough to believe Bush wants to take SS and pensions away from old people. This nation might be more divided than I thought!
One reason for the conservative surge? Dem-liberals are busy having abortions and conservatives are having babies. the liberals are cutting their own throats by eliminating future liberal voters.
Ratso,
throw in that much of their get out the vote drive was targeted at some very self centered people.
Many of the liberals I know think something should be done about X.
When X is housing for the poor, most will not give more than pocket change, or pick up a hammer and help build… but they agree something should be done… not caring where the money comes from (or noticing how much might be theirs).
Now, the libs I know who donate signifigant time and money (and I mean signifigant to them… 1k means more from me than it would from Bill Gates) I give plenty of respect to, but I still don’t want my time and money taken by government fiat.
The point of this is, the youth vote, and the unemployed vote… many of the youth might think something should be done, but wont take action to do it. To lazy, to callow, to… young. The unemployed? Many are unemployed because they are lazy or unfit (in a physical or mental sense). If you are too lazy to work, you are too lazy to vote. The sick and infirm have an excuse
Anyway, is it a shock that a vote drive targeting these groups failed to get as many votes as it did registrations?
Excellent post La Shawn.
If Bush doesn’t read your blog, he should. The fact that your list was touched on by Bush in his speech today (and he even mentioned Social Security first), indicates that geat minds think alike (or maybe one of his speechwriters DOES read your blog). I think you’d fit right in at a cabinet level post, and I hear a couple may be coming open.
I noticed that you linked to Solo’s county by county blue/red map. Quite amazing at the even more vast area that went for Bush when it is looked at on a county level. The blue areas are only highly concentrated urban areas with enough population to carry an entire state over the votes of the less densely populated counties.
Hmmm…thought I had that emphasized print thing down, but apparently not. I didn’t close it out right…sigh…to be computer literate would be such a good thing.
Montie – Wouldn’t be something if he went down that list and accomplished every one of those things?
If I was offered employment in the Bush Administration, it would be only on a consulting basis. I’m currently working what I consider my last punch-the-clock nine-to-five job. The rest will be freelance and entrepreneurial opportunites, God willing.
A very fine post, as usual, La Shawn. I might quibble with some of your choices in your agenda, but… The main point I’d like to make is that we Christians need to be careful about not making worse the perception and fear that already exists that we’re out to create a theocratic, fundamentalist state. The fact that it’s nonsense doesn’t mean that a large number of secular Americans don’t believe it and fear it — it doesn’t advance the cause of the Gospel to confuse and mix political agendas with religious agendas. Conservatives have won big, but it would be good for us to consider the pitfalls of political power and the possibility that even we, because we are sinful people, can become opponents to the work of God by the aggressive pursuit of power and the presumption that we have a lock on God’s truth.
This is not in reaction to anything you have said at all, just my reading of the times and some concerns about the future.
You put the dash behind “strong” instead of in front.
Charlie – Thanks for reading. You don’t have to tread so lightly. I understand what you mean.
While I PERSONALLY dont agree with Homosexual marriage, i dont see the POINT in defending. If any Conservative/Christian could give some kind of response, id be grateful.
To me, ruining someones life with no personal gain whatsoever seems strange.
Thanks for fixing that La Shawn.
Hey, consulting can be a very good gig. Especially at the White House level. Although I think Bush has already got some good intellectual thinkers on board, who despite their intellect and education, are still possessed of a great deal of common sense, one more can’t hurt.
LaShawn,
Awhile ago I stumbled upon a site called the Theological Education Institute. Their ’slogan’ is, “A vision for ‘First the Gospel, Then Politics…’ A passion for ‘The Love of Hard Questions.” I haven’t read enough at the site to form a clear opinion, however I did read an article that set me to thinking called “Conversations with Homosexual Activists…”
This election has so clearly demonstrated the deep divide between conservatives and the liberal elite. I’ve become increasingly burdened for how to affect my world for Christ. I so quickly lose site of the fact that He does the work and I am merely to be His vessel.
The following paragraph from the aforementioned article really struck a nerve in me:
—”We either are proactive in touching the image of God in broken humanity by the work of the Spirit; or else we are reactive to sin. Homosexual activists are reactive to the effects of sin in their lives, so often rooted in the broken families of their youth. If we as Christians react to pro-homosexual activists or other opponents of the Gospel, we only react to reactions, and thus, we all sink deeper into spiritual quicksand. We only make the situation worse, and actually disserve the Gospel. Sadly, much of the religious right does exactly this — it is known largely for what it opposes, not for what it is for.”—
I won’t ever apologize for being a Christian and conservative in my views. But I also want to ensure that my first priority is reaching people for Christ.
Lisa M.
ElMariachi,
Marriage for two homosexuals doesn’t make sense because there is nothing there to protect. Real marriage protects te children by providing a social structure to keep parents together in a difficult world. If two gays split up, what difference does it make besides some hurt feelings? A mother, on the other hand, makes real physical and career sacrifices and needs to be provided for afterwards.
The real motive behind gay marriage is of course social acceptance, which is why they don’t want to settle for civil unions. The problem is that gays have sought acceptance by attempting to redefine marriage, which is already an institution already in trouble because of the sexual revolution and the welfare benefits that discourage marriage.
Hi Everyone..
A local moderate talk show host I think gave a very sound answer why dems continue to fall short. My dad was a hard working man and was a die hard dem. The talk show host said that the democratic party has always been the party of the working man(blue collar)..One of the things dems have misread is that the common working folks are notliberals. Most have strong family values. It is those people the party of the working people have lost contact with. Plus unowhat? I truely believe conservatives seem to be happier and more friendly than liberals..in general. God Bless America and “all” it’s people. Rainmaker..
‘Privatizing it for us and future generations will take the money out of the government’s hands and into our own where we may invest it ourselves for ourselves.’
So exactly the sort of system that existed when there was no social security? you mean I’m paying in now but won’t get it? That it will be at the whims of market forces whehter I get it? whether my yet unborn children starve in retirement or live decently will depend on a roll of the dice of the market rather than on society deciding that the moral thing to do is take care of the aged and infirm?
I’m sorry. But I don’t think most of america finds that moral. The president may have a mandate to stomp on gays and roe v. wade, but not to destroy social security.
actus,
Don’t know how old you are, but for me and LaShawn, by the time we are old enough to collect, there won’t be enough people paying into the system to matter.
Now, I am investing my own money, and keeping an eye on my own retirement.
But what about all of the grass hoppers that expect SS to provide for them?
And Bush et al aren’t suggesting the pre-SS system (aka every man for himself), as there will still be govt involvement and regulation. If the federal govt is so much better at handling money than the markets, by is it always in the red? Why would SS need fixing in the first place?
‘If the federal govt is so much better at handling money than the markets, by is it always in the red? Why would SS need fixing in the first place?’
Partially because its been raided. And partially because we’ve progressed at making people enjoy longer lives, and because people aren’t having as many kids today.
It doesn’t take much to make social security sound. With productivity growth of about 2% a year, we could double the amount of retired people we care for before I retire. With population increases via immigration, we could alleviate the demographic pressures. It can be around for people like me (a 29 year old) and my yet unborn kids without big changes in payments. The advantage we have over europe is we don’t have the demographic timebomb they have. Lets take advantage of that and guarantee a floor to people’s retirement. Its a way of putting values into government.
Actus – You’re the product of too much socialist thinking. Government is so intrusive in our lives that people like yourself really believe government is MORALLY obligated to take care of you.
actus,
While I don’t question your sincerity, I will question the numbers. Do you have any that I can crunch?
What I don’t like about the model you laid out, is that it is essentially a pyramid scheme: you are always relying on people behind you to pay in and cover you. As long as there is growth in the base, you’ll come out even or ahead. But if we don’t get a big boost in immigration, and the birth rate slows or stabilizes, there will be a shortage.
As for the in the red comment, I meant the govt as a whole, not just SS. If only SS and the occasional odd dept. or program ran red each year (like defense in war years or FEMA in a bad weather year), I would have more faith in a govt. only solution to SS (and medicare etc). But as it is, the govt is the last group I’d trust with money. I’d sooner send my godson (5) into ToysRus with my visa and tell him it’s a magic card
Personally, I think there is more than one way to skin this cat. If people like me want to opt out of the system, why not let us? Even if it’s a semi-opt out, like take half the money and give it to the big pool (which I would have little or no access to when I am 70) and the other half to me, to put into my own investments, I’d prefer that.
But one thing I will agree on… we need to get congress to stop raiding SS like kids with a cookie jar.
‘Actus – You’re the product of too much socialist thinking. Government is so intrusive in our lives that people like yourself really believe government is MORALLY obligated to take care of you.’
I think that if we’re going to have a government reflect our morals — by not accepting gays, for example, or not accepting that people can do drugs or other victimless crimes, I think it also has rooms to reflect the moral that we take care of the aged and infirm. And its not just take care of ME. its take care of the aged and infirm in our society. This isn’t about me, and I’m sorry if my asking if it woudl be around for me or my children made it sound that way.
As for numbers, the CEPR has some. the EPI also has some social security numbers. I do agree that a lot of hte government is in the red, but its not the fault of social security that its looking bad now because it was a good enough of a system to run a surplus in past years, and then got raided.
Actus,
Interestingly enough, it was raided (social security), if you want to use that term, by none other than the Dem’s. I’m afraid you’ve swallowed, out of concern and good intentions I’m sure, all of the socialist buzz words and concepts of the liberals in this country. I would love to have all of the money I paid into SS in a fund that I could manage; I’d have another $250,000 in my nest egg. The only way we could continue with SS as it is now structured would be to mortgage our futur and bankrupt our economy, just like the socialist coutries in Europe. They are in sad shape precisely because of their socialistic burdens of cradle to grave coddling. No Thanks! I’ll take SS reform any day. Good Job LaShawn
actus,
The surplus is because there were more people putting money in than taking money out.
We’ve given Bush the ball on the 1 yard line. It’s up to him to run it in. The Supreme Court is the Supreme prize. We are one or two justices away from an end to national abortion. I know lots of us have been fasting and praying about this election let us continue to do so for the future of the Supreme Court.
Jon Cohen – A ‘civil union’ is a total kick in the teeth. Dont forget there are gay Christians too, and they want to be economically, and religiously bonded. A ‘civil union’ is totally different to a marriage. You dont have to endorse their ways, but how would you feel if they tried to pass votes on how to regulate yours?
Marriage is a civil liberty, and not a religious one. Therefore, Christian arguments against homosexual marriage, while perhaps being valid, are not cause to outlaw the practise.
La Shawn – you speak of Government intervention into our lives. A fair comment, yet you are ENDORSING government intervention into the lives of homosexuals. As long as its not you life, right? It puzzles me how people can advocate government intervention towards one group, but not against others.
‘The surplus is because there were more people putting money in than taking money out.’
I know. thats how the system handles demographic change.
‘The only way we could continue with SS as it is now structured would be to mortgage our futur and bankrupt our economy, just like the socialist coutries in Europe. They are in sad shape precisely because of their socialistic burdens of cradle to grave coddling.’
We don’t need cradle to grave. Just retirement to grave. Thats not that much.
I believe marriage between a man and a woman was ordained by God. It is in Genesis 2. It is not a civil liberty. It is a Biblical Sacrament.
Donna
Marriage is certainly not a civil right, and it’s regulation by the state is not in any way similar to government instrusion on my income with burdensome taxes, for example, or government suppression of criticism against the government. We are free to marry who we want within reason. We may not marry our brothers or fathers. We may not marry a minor or a dog. We can’t be married to two men at the same time. And I may not marry a woman.
What homosexuals want is to destroy the foundation from under our already precarious society by forcing their will on us. Two to three percent of the population! By the way, the 10-percent-of-the-population-are-homosexuals bunk is bunk.
The normalizing of perversion was well underway before I was born. What’s going on now is downright atrocious. I, for one, will fight it.
actus,
But what happens when there are more people drawing than providing? The population is not a pyramid, and there is no guarantee that it will keep growing fast enough to accomadate the number of seniors.
‘But what happens when there are more people drawing than providing? ‘
Thats what we save a surplus for. And thats what increasing productivity helps with. Thats what increasing immigration helps with. Thats what decreasing the number of abortions helps with. and lastly, what us paying more is going to help with. yes. this costs money. it takes money from me and gives it some old person that i dont know. but you know what? it also means we don’t have terrible poverty among the retired.
I think its worth it. And I think a lot of americans think its worth it, though they may have been told that social security needs fixing, they don’t think it should be eliminated. In fact, a lot of them want it fixed because they want it around. Privatization is not a fix of social security. Its a destruction. Because that is neither social, nor secure.
“As a man that hated for 12 years of my life, it isn’t the way to go. Got to channel it into positive motion.”
Wise and positive words Solo.
hmph.
Well, this seems to be quite the thread. I may have missed something, but the balance of this seems to be around “privatizing Social Security.” Everyone seems to be missing the basic, fundamental, colossal failure of Social Security: it’s a Ponzi scheme!!! I don’t care if it’s David Duke, Lyndon LaRouche (sp?), John Kerry, or whoever else: I’ll knock down old ladies to get to the polls to vote for the person who bothers to come out and admit, and run on, the fact that someday this house of cards must come down. The sad fact is that, at some point, one generation will have to support a prior generation in order to get us out of this mess.
On a relatively unrelated note, I would like the opinions of others on this idea. As a preface, I freely pronounce that I am a white Christian male, for the sake of honesty. So, here we are:
At this point, we conservatives should be looking toward 2008. It seems pretty obvious to me that the Left will be doing all they can to run Hillary. So, here’s my question:
A Rice/Powell ticket for 2008?
It seems to me to be an undefeatable ticket, would Colin’s wife allow it (I know, vice-, but his wife has to be equally concerned about it). Personally, I think a Condi/anyone ticket is undefeatable.
Thoughts?
Good morning Lashawn..
Life is Good
I sent your comments on Bush to my conservative writer friend. You are gaining a tremendous following. Here in Cincinnati we are not used to break away black female conservative and Christian writers. Also thank you for directing me to Michelle’s blog..another refreshing and courageous writer. Without sounding patronizing your blog and it’s contributers give me hope for our country. I hope I am contributing and not just exposing my lack of education. I want to be a part of this intellectual and spiritual movement that I read on this site. It’s exciting. I’m learning so much. But so far my greatest achievement here has been to learn How to be Bold ..Thank you Andy..
Everything the President said he would do, during this campaign just like the first, he plans to do. He doesn’t pander to get elected.
Social Security privatization will begin. For those still fighting the battle, the war is over. Respect the peoples democratic decision and save yourself stress.
Ray – You are contributing in more ways than you think. It doesn’t matter to me what a person’s education level is. The fact that you read this blog and have something to say is valuable to me. Even when people disagree with me, I’m still amazed that they’re reading the blog, despite their contrarian intent.
I learn so much from my commenters, including you. I’m honored that you consider my blog worthy of your time. I’m just as excited about what’s happening, and it’s going to be a blast witnessing it together!
‘Social Security privatization will begin. For those still fighting the battle, the war is over. Respect the peoples democratic decision and save yourself stress.’
Part of the problem is that they argued against people using the term ’social security privatization’. Its disengenous to now say thats what you have been elected to do. Specially when we know people went to the polls for bush overwhelmingly on moral issues.
Actus, you leave me “speechless”, sometimes, and that’s difficult to do.
You’re going to have to explain yourself on that one LB. what are you referring to?
Adam Wood,
“it’s a Ponzi scheme!!!” is a lot like calling it a pyramid scheme, isn’t it?
read harder
Granted, my posts tend to ramble like Dan Rather when the nurse can’t force feed him his meds. Still, welcome to the debate!
Rice/Powell. I can’t see Powell running. He has a great disdain for much of Washington (I was surprised Bush got him to be Sec of State and keep him there for 4 years).
Condi… I could see some hope there, but having never run for national office… that could hurt her. I could see her as VP, with an eye towards running in a later election.
I am curious who will leave the admin at this point.
I hear Powell wants out, Rummy… maybe, Ashcroft a maybe. Ridge, definitely out (no tears here).
How about Rudy G, Homeland security director?
Right man, IMO, and it will set him in good stead for a run in 08.
I hear Cheney may move over to a cabinet or advisory posistion… VP CONDI?!?
Well, I need more coffee….
*hee*
I think he read a *FEW* of our blogs yesterday morning, LaShawn! I hit the same issues, as did Kim du Toit and several others. Good, though. He has a lot of responsibility since he’s sort of got the power.
LaShawn, this more for your respondants than for you:
If in our democratic society, we are free to follow whatever beliefs we choose, so long as we do not impose on others…
…and if government should be small and not intrude upon the rights of invididuals…
…and if people who get married are not compelled by law to have children…
…then why shouldn’t two legal-aged citizens enter into an exclusive arrangement providing each other financial security? Like a civil ceremony?
…P.S. Does marriage automatically mean children? If so, shouldn’t all childless couples be forced to have kids, or else be divorced?
…P.P.S. Underaged kids are being forced to marry in settlements in Utah. Illegal, yes, but it follows their particular religious beliefs. If they honestly believe God tells them to do so, should our society squash their beliefs for the sake of our propriety?
Actus, just 2 more cents on the SS issue. To state that the stock market is unreliable and risky as a matter of building a nest egg/social security is sheer foolishness–even the Bible has something to say about investing and doubling your returns as a wise thing.
The day that the stock market trends down is the day that the US govt will not be able to sustain SS in any shape or form no matter what — we all will be in trouble, not just here but globally. Shucks, even T-Bills have a better rate of return than the miserable socialist economic gadget masquerading as a social safety net.
Simple economics would say it makes sense to allow individuals to privatise 1/2 of their usual SS taxes and remit the other half to the govt as a saftey net for the employment-challenged. The half that I privatize would easily provide me 3 – 4 times as much as SS could ever hope to dole out to me.
In exchange for that opportunity, I would be “glad” to kiss the other half goodbye, just so I don’t have to hear stories of widdle old ladies living on a pittance, or old men living under a bridge, cause SS only goes as far as sustenance.
While it’s well know that the power of compound interest is awesome, I just can’t trust the govt, ie politicians and bureaucrats, to keep their grubby hands off.
“If in our democratic society, we are free to follow whatever beliefs we choose, so long as we do not impose on others…”
When have you ever found anyone willing not to impose their judgements on others, no matter what their “religion,” be it Christianity, humanitarism, “just-have-fun-ism” or whatever?
Faith without works is dead. La Shawn’s entry about the school board is proof of that.
The U.S. government has not banned a single religion in over two centuries. (Which makes me proud, as it does you, I’m sure.) Whatever the “ism”, the law allows it providing it causes no harm.
As for imposition, being “willing” and “allowed” are two seperate animals.
The fact that the school board will be held accountable to its voters or appointers proves the statment in question. The fact that you will be allowed to organize opposition to the school board decision without government oppression proves the statement in question.
And what of the arguement re homosexual civil ceremony?
Comments on this entry are closed.